EconoMeter: If Supreme Court rejects Obama care does it matter to economy?

FILE - In this March 28, 2012 file photo, protesters chant and hold a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in front of Supreme Court in Washington as the court concluded three days of hearing arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhau

/ AP

FILE - In this March 28, 2012 file photo, protesters chant and hold a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in front of Supreme Court in Washington as the court concluded three days of hearing arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Arguments in the Supreme Court failed to yield clear hints how the justices would rule on the question of whether President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would be left standing if the high court were to strike down the linchpin provision that all Americans must have health insurance. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

FILE - In this March 28, 2012 file photo, protesters chant and hold a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in front of Supreme Court in Washington as the court concluded three days of hearing arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Arguments in the Supreme Court failed to yield clear hints how the justices would rule on the question of whether President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would be left standing if the high court were to strike down the linchpin provision that all Americans must have health insurance. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File) (/ AP)

Q: If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns or sharply scales back the Obama health care law, will there be serious economic implications for those who again would not be able to afford health insurance?

Panel's answer: Yes 4, No 4

Marney Cox, San Diego Association of Governments

Marney Cox

Marney Cox

Marney Cox

ANSWER: NO

The actions of the Supreme Court have little to do with making health care affordable. After the court’s decision has been rendered, the high and rising cost of health care will still be with us. Some estimates suggest there are 50 million people that do not pay for their health care with insurance, for various reasons. This does not mean that these same people don’t receive health care. Both sides of the health care law debate recognize that economic effects already exist because the uninsured as a class routinely and repeatedly consume health care they cannot afford. The court’s decision is mostly about whether Americans have the freedom to choose, something priceless in a market economy.

Kelly Cunningham, National University Systems

Kelly Cunningham

Kelly Cunningham

Kelly Cunningham

Answer:: NO

Rather than a health care plan we do not want, need, or can afford, much better reforms can be instituted instead. The flawed Affordable Care Act does not make health care better, and makes it more costly, harder to get, and frustratingly bureaucratic. Not only diminishing the quality of the nation’s health care but it is a huge extension of federal power greatly diminishing our economic freedom and constitutional rights. Medicaid and Medicare coverage will still be administered by states better suited to innovate and design health care solutions more effectively than an overreaching federal behemoth of one-size fits all.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

Alan Gin

Alan Gin

Alan Gin

Answer: YES

The health care law extends coverage to many who don’t currently have health insurance, and those people would be hurt economically if they couldn’t get or afford coverage otherwise. These include children under 26 who could be covered by their parents’ policies, those with pre-existing conditions, those who would benefit from the expansion of Medicaid, and those who could obtain coverage through the establishment of state exchanges. Also hurt economically would be those who benefit from specific provisions of the act, such as the lifting of the cap on lifetime benefits and the closing of the “donut hole” for prescription drugs for seniors.

James Hamilton, University of California San Diego

James Hamilton

James Hamilton

James Hamilton

Answer: NO

Remember that most of the details of the health legislation have yet to be implemented. Moreover, the Supreme Court is considering the narrow question of whether the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to force individuals to buy insurance. If the court rules that the Constitution does not give Congress this authority, that does not preclude the government from coming up with a workable plan for how to assist those who are in need. Whichever way the court rules, important details of how that assistance is actually going to be provided still need to be settled.

Gary London, The London Group Realty Advisors

Gary London

Gary London

Gary London

Answer: YES

The 78 million aging baby boomers are a ticking time bomb. As they get sicker so will the federal budget. The health insurance system currently allows the dumping of the very sick, places limitations on the pre-existing sick and imposes onerous premiums. Spreading the financial base would be highly beneficial and would contribute to economic prosperity, as it has in Germany. The security and peace of mind that an omnibus health policy will bring to all Americans is fundamental to our health and welfare. It is unfathomable that the law might now be struck down over constitutional nitpicking and a meddlesome court.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

Norm Miller

Norm Miller

Norm Miller

Answer: YES

Forcing everyone to buy insurance results in those who can afford to pay subsidizing those who would be charged much higher rates for pre-existing conditions. If the government did not impose this buy-in by those who are profitably insured, then the rates will go up significantly for the remaining pool of higher risk participants. At the same time we should recognize that we already subsidize uninsured households via higher rates at hospitals who often serve the uninsured at expensive emergency rooms. If the uninsured were re-directed towards less expensive clinics, in theory, this would save us all money but we may never know the reality here since only time would tell.

There are two primary economic reasons for forcing everyone that can buy insurance to do so. One is similar to the same rules that require us to wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles, that is, there is a burden upon the rest of society which is imposed by those who fail to take precautions. The other rationale is simply whether we as society want to make sure that everyone has some basic level of health care. It does not imply a European style system, but it is not free.

Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University

Lynn Reaser

Lynn Reaser

Lynn Reaser

A: NO

The president and Congress could take other steps to enable health care insurance to be provided for all. Subsidies could be given to enable the uninsured to gain coverage. Alternatively, the insurance model could be abandoned totally in favor of a government provided health care system. Even if the Obama plan is upheld, insurance costs may still appear prohibitive to many. Younger, healthier Americans may object to the purchase requirement. The real issue is the cost of health care. It must be controlled or the nation could ultimately become bankrupt.

Dan Seiver, San Diego State University

Dan Seiver

Dan Seiver

Dan Seiver

Answer: YES

If only the individual mandate is overturned, insurance companies will have to raise rates sharply because they will still be forced to cover pre-existing conditions. More Americans (now around 50 million) will forgo insurance, "rolling the dice" that they won't get seriously sick, and ending up in the emergency room if they do. Expensive and dangerous for them and costly for all of us. If the entire law is overturned, we will get no health care reform for years. The current health care "system" is not sustainable in the face of the demographic tsunami of the Baby Boom. Health care will eat up an ever-increasing share of GDP.